Talk:SS Botany Bay
Launch date I believe that Star Trek II Khan states quite clearly that the BB was launched in 1996. --TOSrules 19:50, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) :1996 is a perfectly reasonable year. He was the last of the tyrants to be overthrown, which occurred that year, he (and 80-90 "supermen") escaped and was therefore unaccounted for. Certainly if they were accounted for they would have known they left and if that was the case it would have been almost immediately, and at least: it is safe to say that the Botany Bay came from the penal colony of the same name from the late 1990s, rather than keeping it completely ambiguous. Of course not all of pieces in this universe are going to fall into place, nonetheless this, specifically, is difficult to otherwise dispute. --FuturamaGuy 16:19, 17 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::I'm not quite sure exactly what your reasoning is here, but: ::#Read the Eugenics Wars article, as the footnote says, and you'll see why the date should be ambiguous. ::#Does it say in the episode that the vessel was launched from there? If not, then it isn't "safe to say" it was launched from there. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:29, Sep 17, 2004 (CEST) : I would like to see the reasoning against why Khan didn't escape in the "late 1990s", much less from "Australia". --FuturamaGuy 17:49, 17 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::?? I just gave you said reasoning as to why it shouldn't be included. There is considerable doubt now, based on later references, that the Eugenics Wars did take place in the 1990s in the Trek timeline. Thus, ambiguity is key. As for Australia, if it says so in the episode, then fine, put it in. But if it doesn't, it's speculation. Why assume the ship was launched from where it was named after? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:48, Sep 17, 2004 (CEST) ::: We don't need to find any "reasoning against" including speculation.. quite simply put, it absolutely should not be part of the article body unless it was directly implied or mentioned in the episode. If they didnt mention something about Botany Bay, then there's no cause for us to include the information. It's an unknown. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:18, 18 Sep 2004 (CEST) Bajoran symbol? Someone just added the following: :The Bajoran religious wheel symbol (sometimes seen, for example, in Kira's quarters) is composed of rotated images of the Botany Bay. Where is this coming from? I don't think the Bajoran religious symbol is made from the Botany Bay, considering the Bajoran religion is thousands of years old. I am removing it. --OuroborosCobra 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :From the Star Trek Encyclopedia: It is not the usual Bajoran symbol it is speaking of, but rather the "Decorative Symbol" viewable here -- Kobi 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::I've looked at the picture and that doesn't seem to be an accurate description of the image presented. Is it referenced in an interview or publication somewhere that that was the inspiration for the symbol? If not, I think that whole section needs to go. – TheBovaEffect 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :::As mentioned above, it is mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia by the Okudas. --Jörg 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC) ::::As far as the need to source this, if you got a good copy of the symbol, and looked at it up close, you would see that each "spoke" is an outline of the Botany Bay. The artists used one piece of stock graphic art to create another, and we can see it with our own eyes if we were willing to look... -- Captain MKB 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :::::If it helps, here is a nice picture of the symbol, as well as how many Botany Bays are in it (40). http://www.christies.com/Lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4779941 05:06, August 21, 2013 (UTC) Whatever happened? Does it say anywhere in any of the canon what happened to the Botany Bay after it was robbed of its cargo pods? NeoExelor 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Cargo carriers The article states that the cargo carriers were Starfleet; weren't they from the Botany Bay? One of them had a seat belt marked Botany Bay. 31dot (talk) 11:40, January 27, 2013 (UTC) :I think it is a somewhat ambiguous one way or the other. Since in both SD and HD versions of "Space Seed" they abandoned the Botany Bay and were on their way to the Ceti Alpha system without the Botany Bay in tow at the end of the episode, it would seem the cargo bays were Starfleet-issue with all of Khans belongings in them, including those straps with the buckles. While it is of course also possible they doubled back to get those bays from the Botany Bay after the episode. I think we would need a production source to confirm if the set of the cargo containers was designed to represent a section of Khan's old ship or a standard-issue container left behind by the Enterprise. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:40, January 27, 2013 (UTC) Are we sure it's the Botany Bay? I think that stating the ship that Khan and his people were on when they were discovered by Admiral Marcus' people was named the Botany Bay is speculation. Khan never named the ship. It could have been another name.Throwback (talk) 07:56, May 17, 2013 (UTC) :Explain, how could it be a different ship if the ship was manned and launched (and named) well before the timeline split? --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:11, May 17, 2013 (UTC) I feel the manner in which the information is disclosed in the article would create a false impression that the Botany Bay was named in the film. This isn't the case, so I raised an objection that I have seen used on other wikis. I think the article should be fixed to create this error. Is there a good way to fix this article?Throwback (talk) 08:50, May 17, 2013 (UTC) :If mentioning that the ship's name wasn't given is important enough, that info could be added to the section as a . Whether it really is important enough to add I can't tell - I wouldn't consider naming the ship here an error. --Cid Highwind (talk) 09:01, May 17, 2013 (UTC) ::It is I think still a bit ambiguous, that when the time continuum was disrupted at 2233, did it create an alternate past for the new reality as well to where alternate ppl will go back in time or do they share the exact same past. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:07, May 17, 2013 (UTC) :Alternate as in "different from the original"? I've never seen something like that mentioned anywhere, and it wouldn't make sense either. The only question we could potentially discuss is whether the past is the same or an exact copy - but in both cases, there would be a ship called Botany Bay. --Cid Highwind (talk) 09:11, May 17, 2013 (UTC) ::It is not mentioned anywhere, but we don't yet know how it will work until we see it. With all the paradoxes seen in trek, there are more than those two options is all i'm saying. We shouldn't assume anything yet. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC) :It has been spelled out that the new timeline differs from the old timeline because of changes from Nero's time travel. If these changes happened in 2233 and later, that means that everything before is the same. I don't see how that is an "assumption" we mustn't use in articles. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC) I have noticed one major change between the Khans. I speak about it on page for the alternate Khan. If there is one change, why can't there be more?Throwback (talk) 18:16, May 17, 2013 (UTC) ::Many of the effects to the timeline before 2233 originate from after 2233, so I would assume it is at least possible that most of the major changes to the past will now be carried out by alt-people, making it a similar but different past with slight alterations that werent major enough to effect USS Kelvin and the birth of Spock etc. but may have an effect on some other small details in the alt reality past. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:20, May 17, 2013 (UTC) :And those pre-2233 effects by post-2233 people will still happen, because the old and new timeline have a shared past. If they hadn't, Nero and Spock couldn't possibly have arrived there by means of time travel. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:41, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Or, both Nero and his crew and Spock ended up in a parallel universe and a century earlier. Throwback (talk) 00:00, May 18, 2013 (UTC) :Or it's all just a bad dream, and Star Trek XIII will start with Kirk (played by Shatner again) waking up in his sonic shower after a night of binge drinking with Scotty. Really, if you want to argue that what happened in the last movie was "not really time travel", then you better take that up on the talk page of Alternate reality. Until then, I think we can continue to call Khan's former ship the Botany Bay in this timeline as well. --Cid Highwind (talk) 00:17, May 18, 2013 (UTC) ::I just don't think it is canon yet that the shared past remained intact and didn't become an alternate past at the same time as the future became an alternate future. I think there are plenty of canon examples where time travel unravels paradoxes in the timeline. I for one just want to see a story where alt people go back to pre-2233 times and see what happens before assuming anything. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:32, May 18, 2013 (UTC) :If you are right about that (and just for the record, I don't think you are), then the consequences for MA would be far more severe than a reference to some ship name being allowed or not. So, again, if you want to argue that we mustn't consider the events of ST09 "time travel", please bring that up on the other talk page. --Cid Highwind (talk) 00:44, May 18, 2013 (UTC) Khan's books I saw one of Khan's books from is entitled "Statutes Regulating (illegible because the shelf blocks it) Commerce" and the other is "Complete (illegible) Shakespeare". (seen here 33955&fullsize 1}}) How would we make page titles for these books? --LauraCC (talk) 17:58, March 2, 2016 (UTC) :It says "statute", not "statutes". But that aside, unless you find some way of completing the titles (for example pictures from the books being auctioned off), there's no way to have an article - in the end halve titles are no more useful then all those titles on books which are just a blur. It's weird though, I could have sworn we had already identified that one book as Statute Regulating Interplanetary Commerce. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:01, March 3, 2016 (UTC)